But consider this piece on Robert George. According to this piece, he's a bigot, his views are not politically adequate, so he should be stripped of an endowed chair at Princeton. Do they give endowed chairs to be people because we like what they say?
I think academic independence from politics and ideology is a great value. For example, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Thomas Nagel. What makes me mad is when his philosophical arguments are attacked not because he is mistaken, but because they give aid and comfort to political miscreants like ID advocates. Consider this from the Nagel-Weisberg review of Mind and Cosmos.
The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues. Even a philosopher sympathetic to Nagel’s worries about the naturalistic worldview would not claim this volume comes close to living up to that subtitle. Its only effect will be to make the book an instrument of mischief.”
So we can't say certain things because it might become bulletin-board material for the bad guys. Really.
The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues. Even a philosopher sympathetic to Nagel’s worries about the naturalistic worldview would not claim this volume comes close to living up to that subtitle. Its only effect will be to make the book an instrument of mischief.”
So we can't say certain things because it might become bulletin-board material for the bad guys. Really.
5 comments:
So we can't say certain things because it might become bulletin-board material for the bad guys. Really.
Nothing's quite so dangerous as a fact which supports your opponent's argument. Social justice can't be achieved if people can express their opinions openly. Bad opinions are just another form of rape.
"It's been decades since I've voted for a Republican for President. I think it unlikely that I will break that streak this year ..."
Or, in plain English -- you will continue to support:
1) abortion;
1a) the growing persecution of medical staff who will not participate in performing abortions;
2) the imposition of homosexuality upon society;
2a) the forcible indoctrination of the nation's children into homosexuality;
2b) the growing persecution of citizens who will not join in celebrating homosexual acts;
3) crony "capitalism";
4) policies intentionally designed to increase the cost of living for everyone;
5) policies intentionally designed to weaken America on the world stage;
5a) policies intentionally designed to destroy Western Civilization;
6) policies intentionally designed to (further) endanger Israel;
n) and on and on.
And, the funny thing is this: much like the "secularists" who will still be blaming Christianity and Christians for all the problems in the world, even as the Moslems -- whom they are presently empowering, imagining they can use Islam to destroy Christianity -- are sawing off their heads with a dull knife, when all the bitter harvest of the policies you have been supporting for decades comes to fruit, you will *still* be blaming conservatives and/or Republicans.
Do you guys really think the Republican party is really conservative?
This is what comes from blind political partisanship. Vote for the person, and not the party! I will definitely be "splitting my ticket" this next election.
Not voting Republican is not the same as voting Democratic.
Post a Comment